In part 3 we have seen nothing that would cause us to modify the conclusions which we reached in part 2, and have found much further evidence to support our case. In connection with the issue of how Jesus' revelation relates to that of Moses, as in connection with the issue of the relationship between Jesus and God, the Fourth Evangelist engaged in legitimation, attempting to defend his beliefs. In order to do so, he developed the traditions he inherited. The idea of pre-existence was of particular importance, as it allowed John to attribute to Jesus as Son of Man a knowledge of heavenly things which could not be attributed to any other figure. In his use of Wisdom categories, John is particularly close to earlier writers, as they too made use of Wisdom language and imagery in order to present Christ as superior to Moses/Torah. Nonetheless, John's portrait is more developed than these. This may be due in part to the ‘knock-on effects’ of the developments we traced in part 2. Once John began to rethink the relationship between Wisdom and the human Jesus, further implications for the issue of the relation between Jesus and Moses would have become apparent. Yet we have not seen any firm evidence that John's legitimation of Christology against charges of ‘blasphemy’ is presupposed in his legitimation of his Christology in relation to the Moses issue, nor any real indication that the reverse is true.

In recent times an area which has attracted a great deal of scholarly attention is the development of Christian doctrine, and in particular Christology. That Christology – whether in New Testament times or in the subsequent centuries – has undergone changes and developments of some sort, appears to be beyond question. However, the question of how and/or why doctrine develops has not been answered with any similar degree of consensus. This lack of consensus is perhaps nowhere more clearly visible than in the case of the Fourth Gospel. In the numerous recent attempts to trace the history of the ‘Johannine community’, appeals have been made by different scholars to the influence of diverse individuals, groups, cultures and ideas, each trying to explain thereby the link between the earliest traditions about Jesus and the distinctive portrait of him found in the Fourth Gospel. In the present work we will not be attempting to write a history of the Christian community or communities within which the Gospel took shape. We shall nonetheless seek insights from the realm of sociology in order to provide an explanatory mechanism for understanding the process of christological development evidenced in the final product we know as the Gospel according to John. This Gospel appears not only to have deep roots in early Jewish Christianity, but also to have been written by and/or for Christians who were in continuing dialogue with non-Christian Judaism.

Having examined the main passages in the Fourth Gospel which relate to the conflict between the Johannine Christians and ‘the Jews’ over the relationship between Jesus and God, we may now seek to draw together the overall results and conclusions which arise from this part of our study.

First, we have found no reason to deny or qualify the Evangelist's statement of his purpose in 20.31. His aim is to convince people (whether those who already believe or unbelievers is irrelevant for our present purposes) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. We have found no evidence that the Evangelist is seeking to defend the idea that Jesus is, for example, the Word-become-flesh. Rather, the Word/Wisdom imagery that we have encountered appears to serve as part of a defence of the Messiahship of Jesus as understood by many, if not indeed most or all, early Christians. The Evangelist seeks to defend and legitimate the Christian view of Jesus as the one to whom God has given authority as his agent and viceroy, who sits at God's right hand and even bears God's own name. All of these ideas are earlier than John, and the distinctively Johannine use of the imagery and ideas which he inherited from early Judaism and Christianity we have seen to be part of John's legitimation.

The next segment of John's Gospel that we will be considering in this part of our study is the bread of life discourse in John 6. Here John presents yet another dialogue between Jesus and ‘the Jews’. That the conflict setting of the Johannine community has influenced this text is suggested by the way ‘the Jews’ respond to what Jesus says: they ask for a miraculous sign (6.30–1), and grumble and argue in response to his words (6.41, 52). The result is that even many of his disciples turn back from following him (6.66). This may indicate that we have to do here with a later conflict, an inner-Christian one, a possibility to which we shall return our attention later in the present chapter. Nonetheless, the fact that the opponents are here referred to as ‘the Jews’ suggests that, whomever else the author may have had in mind, the same opponents that were in view in the other passages we have been examining are still in view here. These factors, as well as many features of the text that we shall consider below, suggest that the bread of life discourse will prove relevant to our study.

The focus of the conflict

The focal point of the narrative, which provides its starting point and most of its imagery, is the Jewish manna tradition. The crowd asks Jesus for a miraculous sign to demonstrate his claims, just as Moses' claims were confirmed by the miracles he accomplished.

We have already reviewed in chapter 7 the indications that the prologue reflects a controversy setting and that it represents an attempt to legitimate certain beliefs, and thus we need not review this evidence again here. In order to avoid unnecessary repetition in this chapter we shall at times presuppose our earlier discussion of certain aspects of the prologue and the conclusions drawn there.

The focus of the conflict and its relation to earlier tradition

One of the debates which underlies the prologue of the Fourth Gospel is the issue of the relationship between Jesus and Moses and their respective revelations. This can be seen explicitly in 1.17, where some sort of contrast/comparison is made between Jesus and Moses. However, it is also implicit in a number of other features: the application to Christ of imagery connected with the Torah (with which Wisdom had been identified in Jewish tradition), and the allusions to traditions connected with Moses at Sinai (such as seeing God in 1.18, and grace and truth in 1.17).

The imagery John uses, and his overall portrait of Jesus here, are based on earlier Christian approaches to this issue. In view of the poetic or hymnic character of the prologue, the closest New Testament parallel outside the Johannine corpus is probably Colossians 1.15–20. There we find Wisdom language and imagery being applied to Jesus, and this use of such imagery is best understood as a response to the application of similar imagery to Torah in Jewish writings.

With the command to “rejoice in the Lord” in Phil. 3:1a, Paul returns to the theme of “the things that matter,” things that may legitimately be made the object of one's joy, and introduces the second heading of his letter (3:1–4:1). He has so far instructed the Philippians in the things that matter relative to the gospel mission, namely, the “progress” (πρoκoπή) of the gospel message and the “boldness” (παρρησíα) of the gospel messenger (1:12–2:30). But he has more to say on this topic, and in 3:1–4:1 he takes up the question of what matters relative to one's Christian existence as such. Here the proper object of joy is not the proclamation of Christ (cf. 1:18b: Xριστòς καταγγλέλεται καì ἐυ τούτῳ χαíρω), but Christ himself (cf. 3:1a: χαíρετε ἐυ κυρίῳ). Paul thus moves in the second part of his letter from penultimate to ultimate concerns, or, to continue with the theme announced in 1:10a, from the things (plural) that matter to the “one thing” (ἕν) that matters most: “the surpassing greatness of the knowledge of Christ” in comparison to which all else is “refuse.” In Christ, Paul offers the Philippians a source of joy that is altogether independent of the measurable successes of the gospel mission.

The literary integrity of Philippians is much debated and must be discussed prior to any study of the letter. It is particularly relevant to our study which argues that the prayer-report of Phil. 1:9–11 is programmatic for the argument of each of the alleged letter-fragments and gives to the canonical letter both a logical and a thematic unity. In this initial chapter we shall examine the case for partitioning. We shall argue that it has not been successfully made and that, on the evidence, it is reasonable to approach Philippians as a unity.

Modern critical reconstructions of Philippians have typically understood it to be a composite of three separate letters, the first two of which at least were written while Paul was in prison. These are, in chronological order: Letter A (4:10–20), a short thank-you note sent immediately after the arrival of Epaphroditus with a gift from the Philippians; Letter B (1:1–3:1), a letter of reassurance sent upon the return of Epaphroditus; and Letter C (3:2–4:3), a polemical letter or Kampfbrief sent at some later date (perhaps after his release) when Paul had become more fully apprised of the theological dangers facing the Philippians. The remaining material in 4:4–9 and 4:21–3 is variously assigned, though usually 4:4–7 and 21–3 are assigned to Letter B. Evidence adduced in support of this hypothesis falls into three categories: (1) various pieces of external evidence suggesting either directly or indirectly that Philippians is a composite; (2) internal evidence pointing to 3:2–4:3 as the fragment of a separate letter; and (3) further internal evidence pointing to 4:10–20 as another fragment. We shall consider these in order.

External evidence that Philippians is a composite

The evidence for partitioning Philippians is primarily internal.

To say, as many New Testament scholars now do, that Paul's letters must be studied in light of their respective rhetorical situations is to do more than simply repeat Historical Criticism's familiar creed that documents rooted in a specific historical context can be understood only in reference to that context. It is to say, rather, that Paul's letters were written in response to specific situations (the nature of which I will attempt to define below) and that each letter stands in relation to its situation in much the same way that an answer exists relative to a question or a solution to a problem. Furthermore, it is to say that a fairly detailed description of this generative situation is an early and important step in any critical study of a Pauline letter. In this chapter I will attempt to reconstruct the rhetorical situation of Philippians. Such a reconstruction is, of course, a work of synthesis that can exist only in dialogue with the more detailed exegetical analysis of the letter. As far as possible I will try to indicate the exegetical basis of my reconstruction; at times, however, I will refer to the exegetical chapters in part II below. I begin with a few theoretical considerations.

The rhetorical situation: some theoretical observations

Bitzer's theory of the rhetorical situation

The current emphasis on the rhetorical situation in Pauline studies derives from the theoretical work of Lloyd Bitzer whose programmatic essay, “The Rhetorical Situation,” articulates a theory of “rhetoric-as-essentially-related-to-situation.”